The tribunal

Tribunal appointment—multiple parties

This Practice Notes provides guidance on how to appoint a tribunal where there are multiple parties involved in the arbitration and the appointment process, including the position on common arbitrators across multi-party and related arbitration proceedings. It covers the relevant provisions of the Arbitration Act 1996 and arbitration proceedings under the UNCITRAL Rules, the Arbitration Rules of the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA Rules) and Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) (ICC Rules). See Practice Note: Tribunal appointment—multiple parties.

Ensuring the arbitral tribunal's independence

This Practice Note sets out the issues a party appointing an arbitrator should consider when trying to ensure their independence. It sets out points to consider when nominating an arbitrator and provisions in major sets of institutional rules such as those made by the ICC, the American Arbitration Association (AAA), the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC) and the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC). See Practice Note: Ensuring the arbitral tribunal's independence and impartiality.

Challenging the tribunal's independence

This Practice Note sets out why and how a party might

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Arbitration News

Switzerland - Revision of an arbitral award influenced by forgeries and fraud (A.________ v B.________, 4A_268/2025)

Arbitration analysis: In a judgment dated 22 October 2025 (4A_268/2025), the Swiss Federal Tribunal granted an application for revision of an international arbitral award rendered by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS 2018/O/5735), holding that the award had been influenced, to the detriment of the player, by criminal offences committed by his former agent. The criminal courts had established that the agent had submitted forged contracts and a fabricated email in order to mislead the sole arbitrator and obtain payment of an undue commission. Relying on Article 190a(1)(b) of the Swiss Private International Law Act (PILA), the Federal Tribunal set aside the award and remitted the case to the CAS. The decision is exceptional in Swiss arbitration practice, where successful revisions of arbitral awards based on criminal conduct remain extremely rare. It underscores the decisive evidentiary role played by criminal proceedings—particularly where criminal authorities, unlike arbitral tribunals, can rely on coercive powers and international mutual legal assistance to uncover fraud. More broadly, the judgment confirms that Swiss law provides an effective mechanism to ensure that arbitration cannot be instrumentalized as a vehicle for criminal misconduct. Written by Pierre Ducret, CMS Switzerland, counsel to the player before the Swiss Federal Tribunal, and in all related proceedings.

View Arbitration by content type :

Popular documents